Why always start at level 1?

[D-Kal]

I've noticed that everyone likes to start their campaigns at level 1. I'm curious as to why.

First of all, I assume that most of these games (especially PbP) never make it to level 20. Or even close. So I'm pretty sure that's not the reason. So what is the reason? Why don't any games start at like, say, level 4?

Just curious. Opinions appreciated.

[Stiehl9s]

Not everyone does start them at level 1. Ive started games on here at 1, 3, 5, 6 and even 18th level. One of my DM's always starts games at 3rd.

[Hoogie]

First off, wrong forum. I believe this should be in gamer life or Pathfinder advice.

I have 3 theories to your question

The first is that of storytelling. People like characters, and origin is where it's at. This applies to me, but I'm sure it applies to others as well.

Next, higher levels are boring. It ends up being focused on what you can do rather than why you do it. You become a superhero with disregard to surroundings. This is why E6 was invented.

Third, a lot of people in the forums are new to tabletop and join because they can't find any enthusiast clubs around. A 1st-level game has the least rules and planning, so it captures a wider market.

[Tenro]

i think, particularly around these forums, people like to use adventure paths which (as far as i know) start around level 1

[Fatespinner]

I pretty much never start a campaign at level 1. Level 2-3 is my usual start. Level 1 characters are too easily brought down by a single crit or a failed save. Level 2-3 at least gives you a fighting chance to survive one.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Because level 1 is where a player can get a grasp on their character's personality before too many rules intrude. Because lower level is fun. Because I often introduce new players to the game, and level 1 is the best place to learn.

[D-Kal]

All valid points. I had a suspicion that people just didn't enjoy playing higher levels. But glad to know that some people start at higher levels. I would think higher levels would let you make your character in a more unique and focused fashion, therefore adding to replay value. But I see the other side too now. Thanks.

[Drejk]

I don't want the campaign to go much past 10th-12th level, so starting early means longer campaign.

[Tenro]

I like to have my characters start out at level 6 or so (when the DM allows for it) since thats about the time players really start getting powerful. The PC can really have some powerful feats (not actual feats, but deeds) to describe in their backstory and to shape their life.

it sorta breaks my sense of disbelief just a bit when 1st level characters have tales of badassery rather than just mere survival in their backstories.

[3.5 Loyalist]

I prefer to start games at level 2. Allows a little bit of multi-classing or to be begin a concept a little more assuredly. Also a tad more hp to keep them up.

And yes, two allows a little bit of, I've already done this. I am cool for this reason, adept at this and this, a graduate of this magic college, or a guardsman/merc for a few years over here and here.

Still! I did have one game that started at level 1 in commoner, and then went level 1 in pc class after that. It was cool for what it was and perfectly worked with the setting and the pcs background. They truly started as simple folk.

[TriOmegaZero]

D-Kal wrote:

I've noticed that everyone likes to start their campaigns at level 1. I'm curious as to why.

Tradition. However, I've been in campaigns that started at all sorts of different levels, 2rd, 3rd, 15th, 20th.

[Orthos]

Never. 2nd bare minimum. Yes, even in APs. My more experienced group prefers 3rd.

[LazarX]

Because it really is the best way to start a character that will wind up with a fully developed story. I've never felt quite the same sense of ownership with characters I've created at high level. It's more like I jumped and took over someone else's role.

Why start at level 1? Because it is the best place to start.

[Tenro]

my favorite character ever started at level 3. made it on to ECL 34 or so (depending on who you asked it was higher).

[Transylvanian Tadpole]

Our group only starts 1st level about 25% of the time. Usually it's more like 4th, 5th or 6th. Our latest game began at 10th level.

[CuttinCurt]

D-Kal wrote:

I would think higher levels would let you make your character in a more unique and focused fashion, therefore adding to replay value. But I see the other side too now. Thanks.

Having started multiple games @ lvl 10 or higher, I can say that if you are a character background driven player, where the story is equally as important as any ability your character might have, then starting higher in level is a detriment to you.

So many flaws are revealed in the first 5-7 levels of advancement (for character design) that skipping those levels can really hurt you.

Sure, you might have some bad ass idea that think is super, but if you start at lvl 12, or 18, you find out quickly just how "not good" that design was for you, and usually in combat (which is not good)

If you had started at 1st, then you would have seen the flaw quickly, and remedied it with feats or alternate level advancement.

Just my 2 cents.

CC

[Terquem]

"Why don't you just give them more hit points, better odds of wining, less chance of losing, and call THAT level 1?"

"Because this one goes to eleven" – Spinal Tap

Seriously, this question boggles my mind. What do you mean “Why start at level 1?” well here’s another answer, from the King of hearts, “Start at the beginning, when you come to the middle, continue, when you get to the end, stop.”

It all comes back to a game theory I have called, “The Pinball Effect.” And all of my players have listened to me go on, and on, about it.

See when I was a child, a pinball machine had bumpers that scored ten points, targets that scored 100, and you got a free game at ten thousand points. Now, admittedly, the machines did get a bit more sophisticated, you know they added ramps and wire ways to carry the balls, but basically what really changed was that bumpers now score 50,000 points, targets score 200,000 points, and you get a free game at twenty five million points! (Wow isn’t that exciting, I mean, really, twenty five million, OMG!)

But wait, it’s still just the same ball bouncing around on the same field.

Dungeons and Dragons (and Pathfinder) suffer from the Pinball effect.

It isn’t that first level is or is not inherently “wrong” or “not fun” or “not playable”, at all. It is still the roll of a d20 and an average 35% to 50% chance to hit. The number required by the roll of the dice has more to do with the illusion of excitement, the small possibility of success and the feeling of joy when success is achieved than any sort of simulation to actual combat expertise. The damage your attacks do has more to do with the illusion of a difficult encounter, than the actual likelihood of a blow, arrow, fireball, causing a living thing to die instantly.

So to decry level one as unplayable is rather counter intuitive. It is no more or less playable than level 20 (because it is the play of the game, not the outcome that is at the heart of the experience), unless, of course, your game goes to level 21.

[Aranna]

It's the journey in role playing that's fun not the destination. Why not extend that journey as fully as you can? So from that ideology the best start point is level 1. You will have plenty of time to enjoy level 2, 3, 6, or even 18 after you've fully enjoyed 1st.

[TriOmegaZero]

And the best end point is level one, because you can fully enjoy the journey by spending the entire campaign at first level. :)

This is why I advocate groups starting at the first level they enjoy and ending at the last level they enjoy. Be that 1-6, 5-8, 15-20, or 20-30. Obviously, you need to play them all once to find out, but after that you need never play the levels you don't like again.

[Aranna]

TOZ? There are levels you don't enjoy playing?

[TriOmegaZero]

Well, I have gotten a little tired of playing 1st level over and over. If the game isn't going to last long enough to reach the next level, I wouldn't mind playing a different level for once.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I nearly always start at 3rd. I did start one at 2nd recently, though. But I can't recall the last time I started one at 1st.

[TriOmegaZero]

My current DM asked what level we wanted to start with. I voted 2nd to make my multiclass character easier to start, and we've reached 6th. When I ran Shackled City my second time I started them at 2nd to help them survive. It's all about group preference.

[Aranna]

I recommend you join a long term campaign then TOZ. They are truly delightful and allow you to fully enjoy each level not just one.

[TriOmegaZero]

Hopefully when I finish my military service next year I will be able to Aranna. The longest lasting group I had only managed to hold together because we were all serving on the same 15 month rotation.

[doctor_wu]

I don't really like shopping for magic items that much that is the boring part of creating a high level character.

[Kalshane]

I almost always start campaigns I run at 2nd level. As others have mentioned, it makes multi-classing easier, as well as giving the PCs a few more HPs.

I have played in campaigns that have started anywhere between level 1 and level 12.

[doctor_wu]

Leveel 2 isn't that bad still not that complex a character more hp and not much shopping.

[Funky Badger]

I was a late starter in it, but there was once a Dark Sun campaign that started at level 0.

Oh my word...